This should be more than "Made in the Philippines"
To see local enterprises and startups having its best efforts to sustain and thrive would say that from these institutions have made bests to give wholesomeness and vigour in efforts to promote national development through production of the better, if not the best goods and services.
As the country trying its best to shift from agricultural/resource extraction to a service oriented sector, local enterprises and startups promotes the development of an entrepreneurial ecosystem conducive to the flourishing of countless innovative talents. To achieve this, however, should involve investments, support structures/systems, networks, and a better education system that geared towards innovation and imagineering.
However, these efforts shouldn't be seen as a mere showcase or as a curiosity to tourists, that "made in the Philippines" is more than just shoes, slippers, abaca ropes, coconut oil and its by-products, old-fashioned native textiles and wooden furniture; nor generic drugs, canned goods, and even construction-grade steel and assembled vehicles from trumped-down parts. Locally made production and innovation should be promoted further through industrialisation as a necessary step in utilising local resources, manpower, and mindsets in applying foreign learning in a local setting.
At first thought would say that industrialisation means the old school factories and steel mills, but it's more than that. Today's industrialisation is being shaped by new and upcoming technologies and is opening up huge growth prospects for both national and world economy. But, in a country that's still developing like the Philippines, what kind of industrialisation that truly benefits the people and the nation that's more than just providing better goods and services? Critics of this "historical"* venture will still insist that industrialisation and genuine domestic development (as means to promote innovation and creativity) is irrelevant, passe, moot and academic. That the national economy should tie to international capital and demands and therefore rely on trade, commerce, with emphasis on resource extraction, exports, and reliance on foreign direct investments. Obeisance to "agreements" be observed even at the expense of safety nets and necessary domestic improvements. And "intense competition" between local and foreign businesses equates 'creativity'. They would even look at the examples of developed countries that benefited from neoliberal "reforms" and yet what happened? Everything's "altered" by ‘Neoliberalism- be it outsourcing of industries by multinationals to that of Public Services to the Private Sector- that everything has commercialised and privatised including basic public services — social protections, education, pensions and criminal justice among them — with often disastrous impacts towards the working masses, the downtrodden, and even smallholders.
But will the country just accept the whims of the multinationals with its sugarcoated promises? May sound pleasing the idea that neoliberalism, of by simply tying up to the dictates of multinational capital may benefit the country, but, despite promoting entrepreneurship and creativity, the desire for progress and development cannot simply tied to the dictates from the outsiders and its local "partners" whose interests prioritised over that of the nation. True that the country needs investments be it local or foreign, but until when the country has to sumbit on the whims of the banksters pretending to be "investing" when in fact imposing limits on domestic development in favour of their policies? Such limitations has made the country still stuck in its continuing past amid enjoying semblances of the present if not the future- as one may observe, what kind of a country that still having feudal societies prevail over that of a modern one regardless of things and thoughts modern? The countryside has roads, irrigation, and even internet, and yet the relation remains feudal as most farmers or peasants don't own land and are forced to work for a landlord- what more the landlord benefits from the multinationals and banksters in making the country continue to remain a producer of surplus crops.
Pardon to make this thought long, but, in developing societies, innovation must go together with industrialisation to create new opportunities for development and foster efficiency. Why deny the need for industrialisation to create a sound atmosphere for innovation, creativity, and development? Should developing countries remain reliant on the whims of the "free market" claiming that "the success of our neighbors was the hegemony of the market?" Entrepreneurs cannot just remain limited to their barrios as they wished to thrive, but in the face of influx of cheap goods from abroad as in the past, will they survive the tide? Critics may blame "oligarchs" for the failures of "protectionism", but how come Korea, or Taiwan does policies against the global tide- manifested in industrial policy, protectionism, mercantilism, and intrusive regulation- and was central in the drive to industrialize? Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia also followed suit as well, so are these at the dictates of the "oligarchs"? Those who supported neoliberalism claimed it was the market that brought these countries "successes" when in reality it was the state- and if there was some liberalisation happened, it was selective liberalisation pursued in the context of strategic protectionism driven by the state, the objective of which was to deepen the industrial structure.
The examples of China and India can also provide the Philippines an idea to catch up with and even "leapfrog" the advanced countries if the government and some concerned sectors pursue policies in industrialisation, as well as innovation and creativity and implement technonationalist "leapfrogging" programs.
As according to an 2015 article made by Matthews and Posadas, in 2009, China adopted and implemented technonationalist leapfrogging policies and programs making the country the world's largest producer of solar panels. A year later, China also overtook advanced counties to become a global maker of wind turbines. Similarly, India also adopted technonationalist policies and strategies to become a major world competitor in utility scale (multi-KW) wind turbines. Both China and India have "foundations" that create suitable conditions in promoting innovation and creativity, what more the will to pursue a nationalist-oriented technoinnovation program that can "leapfrog" and provoke the developed countries in having technologies.
Of course, they've opened to the world for trade and investment, but like what earlier stated, it was selective and tied to national interest.
As far as a concerned person knows is that the "oligarchs" who babbled a distorted form of "protectionism" have disinterest in industrialisation- what more they themselves are in connivance with multinationals and banksters to keep the country limited to its commercial and agricultural nature. What are their backgrounds to begin with? Are they really "protecting" the national economy or just their own entrenched interests? Not all of them are serious nor willing to promote sound development that's contrary to their interests, while the state that's supposed to encourage industries (and in extension create a real atmosphere for innovation) remains mum as its "economists" discourage in favour of uneven trade liberalisation. It is not surprising that innovation and creativity in the country remains stunted as the very order that supposed to promote treats it as a showcase to impress the outsider than a policy to encourage the local.